On Tue, 5 Mar 2013, Greg Farnum wrote: > On Tuesday, March 5, 2013 at 10:08 AM, Wido den Hollander wrote: > > On 03/05/2013 06:03 PM, Greg Farnum wrote: > > > This is a companion discussion to the blog post at > > > http://ceph.com/dev-notes/cephfs-mds-status-discussion/ ? go read that! > > > > > > The short and slightly alternate version: I spent most of about two weeks > > > working on bugs related to snapshots in the MDS, and we started realizing > > > that we could probably do our first supported release of CephFS and the > > > related infrastructure much sooner if we didn't need to support all of > > > the whizbang features. (This isn't to say that the base feature set is > > > stable now, but it's much closer than when you turn on some of the other > > > things.) I'd like to get feedback from you in the community on what > > > minimum supported feature set would prompt or allow you to start using > > > CephFS in real environments ? not what you'd *like* to see, but what you > > > *need* to see. This will allow us at Inktank to prioritize more > > > effectively and hopefully get out a supported release much more quickly! > > > :) > > > > > > The current proposed feature set is basically what's left over after > > > we've trimmed off everything we can think to split off, but if any of the > > > proposed included features are also particularly important or don't > > > matter, be sure to mention them (NFS export in particular ? it works > > > right now but isn't in great shape due to NFS filehandle caching). > > > > Great news! Although RBD and RADOS itself are already great, a lot of > > applications would still require a shared filesystem. > > > > Think about a (Cloud|Open)Stack environment with thousands of instances > > running but also need some form of shared filesystem. > > > > One thing I'm missing though is user-quotas, have they been discussed at > > all and what would the work to implement those involve? > > > > I know it would require a lot more tracking per file so it's not that > > easy and would certainly not make it into a first release, but are they > > on the roadmap at all? > > Not at present. I think there are some tickets related to this in the > tracker as feature requests, but CephFS needs more groundwork about > multi-tenancy in general before we can do reasonable planning around a > robust user quota feature. (Near-real-time hacks are possible now based > around the rstats infrastructure and I believe somebody has built them, > though I've never seen them myself.)
Wido, by 'user quota' do you mean something that is uid-based, or would enforcement on subtree/directory quotas be sufficient for your use cases? I've been holding out hope that uid-based usage accounting is a thing of the past and that subtrees are sufficient for real users... in which case adding enfocement to the existing rstats infrastructure is a very manageable task. sage -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
